Generally, annual salary calculation (evaluating the value of athletes) is decided through a process in which the game capability contributed by athletes, the publicity of a team, the capability of mobilizing spectators, and the future game capability are selected as evaluation items, game contents of athlete during play are sub-divided and evaluation of merits is averaged in order to perceive them, external game factors are added fixed based on them, and both a ball club and athletes discuss about the merits and demerits related to the annual salary while confronting with each other. In selecting the game capability having the highest important thing as the evaluation items and then applying it, however, the athlete and the ball club have a competitive position about the amount of the salary due to their subjective positions even after an agreement is reached. Thus, the amount of profits held by both is in reverse proportion to each other.
This results in a distributive outcome in which the greater the profit given to one side, the smaller the profit given to the other side even after the agreement is reached. The fundamental cause of this problem lies in that there does not exist a common objective calculation method in which the evaluation items of the game capability are sub-divided and evaluation of merits is decided. That is, existing evaluation methods are obviously inclined to be subjective. Due to this, points that must be recognized as the merits to both sides are recognized as damages of a concerned party.
As such, in professional sports industry, although a harmonious annual salary agreement in both sides is the most urgent and acute problem from the viewpoint of sports industry development, there is not a mediation tool, i.e., a direct calculation model, which is a program related to annual salary calculation. Of course, if an agreement is broken off in a wage negotiation procedure, there are several methods for solving a dispute, such as a mediation or arbitration method of helping concerned parties to reach an agreement through negotiations and bargaining, a method of allowing a third party to assist decision making, a method of allowing the legitimate authority within an organization to make decision as a substitute, and a lawsuit method in which a dispute is solved according to a strict law court procedure by a judicial officer based on public power of the country. These methods are, however, insufficient to evaluate the degree of contribution by athletes in an objective manner.
In existing searches (“Annual Salary Calculation Model of Korean Baseball Athlete” by Kim Eung-Sik, a doctoral thesis of SUNGKYUNKWAN UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL, 1998, “Development of Annual Salary Calculation Model of Korean Football Athlete” by Sin Mun-Sun, a doctoral thesis of SEJONG UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL, (2003), in order to present the annual salary calculation model, annual salary calculation types that are practiced in respective ball clubs are analyzed, and how much are internal and external factors affecting annual salary calculation occupied in annual salary calculation by what percentage based on opinions regarding annual salary calculation of pertinent ball clubs through questionnaires. They, however, do not present any tool capable of calculating factors that describe the annual salary only based on game achievements being the internal results of athletes. In other words, in existing game achievement record methods, only a quantitative record based on quantitative values is carried out on the basis of the capability of an athlete. There does not exist a qualitative record met hod considering a relative side including negative values of internal game achievements being an actual ability of an athlete.
Therefore, there is a need for a model which can generates and present factors becoming the basis for a model necessary for annual salary negotiations by developing a method capable of recording, evaluating and recording the ability of athletes in a qualitative manner.
Meanwhile, a procedure for annual salary trade of professional basketball athletes will now be described. In case of U.S. NBA (National Basketball Association), an agent is entrusted with negotiations. In case of KBL (Korea Basketball League), an agent is not permitted for negotiations. A concerned party directly negotiates through discussion with the family, etc. Thus, the concerned party is fundamentally weak in legal problems generated when an agreement is reached or is broken off. As a result, the athlete is not well prepared for negotiations compared to the persons related to ball clubs, who have relatively lot of experience. Furthermore, under the situation in which there does not exist proper annual salary calculation that can be used for a negotiation process, the contracting parties have to understand each other based on a formal calculation method. This makes the contracting parties to have unclear feelings even after the annual salary agreement is reached. It is estimated that this phenomenon results from the fact that the contracting parties negotiate only formal results in a state where qualitative contents depending on situations occurring during play are not considered because an existing writing method of recording game contents can perform only quantitative calculation.
Accordingly, an athlete evaluation tool, which sufficiently considers vocational characteristics of athletes, gropes for the rationality in view of business management of ball clubs, and is needed for a wage negotiation procedure that induces common people to actively participate in the procedure, is very important. There are, however, almost no precedent researches into this tool due to absence in the necessity, a difficulty in performing the researches, etc.
Furthermore, if professional sports are to be advanced, a dissonance between ball club and athletes is small, a measurement tool capable of exactly determining an actual ability of an athlete must be developed, and a system in which the tool is transferred to spectators must be precedent. In this case, the spectators will have more interest in sports games. Game factors and an athlete evaluation formula for current athlete evaluation, however, are subjective, and have a limit to the use rationally. Since basketball was originally invented, game rules were set, and game was played among groups, research matters for the development of factors necessary to evaluate athlete are wholly lacking. Corporation aggregates that manage professional leagues or respective ball clubs have made an effect to manipulate and change the game factors from the viewpoint of spectators, but rarely have strived to develop a model in which spectators, athletes and leaders are made get interested, and game results are analyzed and adapted. That is, the existing athlete evaluation method set an absolute reference and does not use other subjective and willful evaluation.
However, this method is impossible to present probability data based on game achievement since it is not a method in which game contents are not recorded on a situation basis. It is thus inevitable that all factors including athlete directions of directors or coaches and operation conception during play are subjected to sensual, subjective and empirical decision. This situation causes distrust among parties concerned due to the unreasonable evaluation method in which low annual salary is provided contrary to good game achievement in deciding the athlete annual salary. As such, there is a problem in that such a behavior in which a fundamental problem of sports has not been researched adds confusion in perceiving and understanding spectators.
Furthermore, in the Korean baseball industry, the position-based power ranking formula of Sports Chosun, which is a method of evaluating the ability of athletes will now be examined. In this method, records of athletes are converted on the basis of 40 minutes, the ran kings are decided on an item basis, and all the ranks are summed to decide the ranking. If the sum is lower, it belongs to higher ranking. The reason why the 40-minute unit is adopted instead of an average game record in the basis method is that an average game participation time is different every athlete. In other words, an athlete who participates in game for average 30 minutes and an athlete who participates in game for average 20 minutes cannot be compared in a simple manner. Accordingly, a total of game participation time is converted into the number of games and is then divided by records. That is, in this method, an athlete is evaluated based on a record that is obtained on average per game. Instead, an athlete who has lots of game participation time is considered to have a high degree of contribution to a team. Thus, an average game participation time item is created and included in the total record. Such an evaluation formula can be expressed into “record×40/total game participation time)=ranking.
In Sports Chosun newspaper (dated Feb. 14, 2003), in evaluating the ability of an athlete, items that belong to a common evaluation factor in each position includes game participation time, the number of successful two-point shoots, the ratio of successful two-point shoots, the ratio of successful free throw, assists, fouls, snatches, errors and scores; the number of successful three-point shoots, the ratio of successful three-point shoots and rebounds when evaluating point guard, shooting guard and small forward; and attack rebound, defense rebound and block shooting, which are additional evaluation factors, when evaluating power forward and center. On the assumption that a position-based role can be identified in a game, it is reasonable to decide the ranking using other references depending upon positions.
As such, Power Ranking is useful in a sense. As athletes having different positions cannot be compared, however, there is a disadvantage in that the whole athletes cannot be compared with each other.
First, rank values vary according to the numerical values of the same items depending upon which position does an athlete has. It is thus not meaningful to compare athletes that belong to different categories, i.e., have different positions. In order to evaluate the total ranking of athletes, all the athletes must be evaluated equally based on objectified numerical values not the rank selection method. Other references applied to respective positions must be objective classifications that are obtained through various opinions. If they do not have the objectivity, application to other references on a position basis may result in significant error.
Second, if the rank is selected based on absolute numerical values upon selection of parameters, a problem arises. An example is as follows.
ABTotal number of 2 points; Number of successful 2points; The ratio of successful 2 points200:100:50%100:80:80%
Assuming that the above table was obtained under the condition in which two players A, B have the same game participation time, considering the number of successful 2 points and considering the ratio of successful 2 points, in evaluating the two athletes, will have different results depending upon situation. If a team of the player A is strong in rebound, the player A can be evaluated to have a higher ratio of team contribution than that of the player B. On the contrary, if the team of the player A is weak in rebound, the player B can be evaluated to have a higher ratio of team contribution than that of the player A. That is, if the team of the player A is strong in rebound, it will be given with a re-attack chance if the number of shoot throws is many. If the team of the player A is weak in rebound, the exactness of shoot will become a cause of victory and defeat. As a result, although the shoot ratio is lowered, there occurs a case where it does not significantly affect victory and defeat. It cannot be said that the higher the shoot ratio, the higher a cause of victory. It is thus unreasonable to evaluate the superiority and disadvantageous of athletes based on the shoot ratio.
Further, in equal comparison, if an athlete who is low in the shoot ratio has higher goals than that of an object athlete, this can also be said to be the degree of contribution, which is comparable to the shoot ratio. That is, when commanding shooting in a basketball game, a shooter should not shoot at random although there is a shooting chance. Only when shooting is attempted considering whether rebound of a team has be en secured when commanding shooting, whether a re-attack right is secured is decided when a ball does not pass through a ring. Thus, only when all shootings related to field shooting are made when they can be checked, game rhythm of a team will be kept. Accordingly, if any team gains an advantage over an opponent team in attack rebound, it can be said that athletes having a high score can be evaluated to have increased the degree of contribution to a team regardless of the shoot ratio when the shooting is one compatible with the above condition. As such, various analyses are possible under various conditions. Resultantly, since under what condition the athlete A and the athlete B have scored is not considered, it is difficult to exactly evaluate the value of score. The meaning of the evaluation of the athlete is also low. That is, if the values of shooting must be compared not the shoot ratio, the degree of contribution to a team by the athletes will be evaluated depending upon when shooting made by a shooter has a big difference in score, when it is in a seesaw situation or a tie situation, or shooting is successful in a reversal chance. Furthermore, evaluation can be different depending upon shooting by assist of a co-player, or shooting by an individual skill of self-effort. It will be contradiction to say that evaluation is efficiency although it is simple and clear.
Third, rebound is classified into defense and attack in the evaluation factors of power forward and center. It is considered that it is meaningless to divide the rebound under the condition in which there is no additional weight. Although it exists, fouls having a high frequency of occurrence have to be classified into foul that permit a free throw, foul that dos not permit a free throw, foul that provides even free throw permission and attack right, and the like. As such, since erroneous classification may change the rank of contribution among athletes, and influence athlete persons, careful attention must be paid.
Accordingly, evaluation based on game achievements of athletes is a measure to evaluate the athletes. It is necessary to minimize contradiction and to perform objectification through verification.